From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-87271-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25037 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2003 23:34:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25030 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2003 23:34:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2003 23:34:43 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBBNYf225965;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:34:41 -0500
Received: from speedy.slc.redhat.com (vpn50-10.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.10])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBBNYe214943;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:34:40 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (law@localhost)
	by speedy.slc.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id hBBNYRVX027597;
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:34:27 -0700
Message-Id: <200312112334.hBBNYRVX027597@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: speedy.slc.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>, gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Reply-To: law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa][ GC, Virtual operands, and GCing between passes 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "11 Dec 2003 18:08:46 EST."
             <1071184128.14253.289.camel@p4> 
From: law@redhat.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:21:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00682.txt.bz2

In message <1071184128.14253.289.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
 >On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:30, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >> In message <1071016677.17667.2918.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
 >>  >
 >>  >I have array of pointers to trees.
 >>  >
 >>  >so 
 >>  >
 >>  >tree **defs;
 >> Really pointers to pointers to trees.
 >> 
 >> 
 >>  >I don't want what defs points to to be marked, since they are marked
 >>  >otherwise, I just need the defs vector itself collected:
 >> Is that really the reason why you're going through these contortions?  Does
 >> it really buy us any measurable improvement?
 >> 
 >
 >ACtually, no, the contortions are just to get the GC system to *let* me
 >have this vector. I have since punted.
Hmmm, don't we just need an array of pointers to trees?  ie

tree *defs?

instead of

tree **defs?

Or am I missing something?

Jeff